In sports, there is often a risk of injury from a moving ball or other projectile. For example, when pitching or playing the field in baseball or softball there is a risk that a player might be struck in the face with a ball. Given the risk of injury, it is common for players to wear protective headgear. For example, a player might wear a headpiece 10, such as that shown in FIGS. 1-2; or a headpiece 30, such as that shown in FIGS. 3-4. However, headpieces 10 and 30 and other similar types of headpieces have certain deficiencies.
For example, headpiece 10 obstructs a player's vision and may interfere with a player's ability to engage during play. In particular, as shown in FIG. 1, headpiece 10 includes a guard 20 having a horizontal component 21 that extends forward of a player's nose. In addition to guarding the player's nose from injury, the horizontal component 21 is designed to extend to a relatively high height to thereby narrow an eye opening 22 and prevent a ball from passing through and striking the player's eyes. However, this design has the undesired side effect of limiting the player's field of view. As shown in FIG. 1, the increased height of the horizontal component 21 significantly decreases the lower bound of a player's field of view from a normal lower bound B1 to only a limited lower bound B2. This also creates a “blind zone” BZ between the normal lower bound B1 and the limited lower bound B2. The loss to the player's field of view can prevent the player from properly performing during a game. For example, as shown in FIG. 2, a softball player wearing headpiece 10 and attempting to field a ground ball 50 will not be able to visually follow the ball 50 to their glove 60 due to the limited lower bound B2 and the blind zone BZ created. This, in turn, increases the likelihood that the player will fail to properly stop the ball 50, which may result in the player failing to successfully complete a potentially game-changing play.
Headpiece 30, in FIGS. 3-4, attempts to solve the field of view problems that result from headpiece 10, but fails to fully address the problem and presents additional risks. In particular, headpiece 30 includes a horizontal wire 41 that extends forward of a player's nose, thereby protecting the player's nose from injury. However, to decrease interference to the player's field of view, the horizontal wire 41 extends to a lower elevation than that of the horizontal wire 21 in the headpiece 10. Nonetheless, even with this lower elevation of the horizontal wire 41, headpiece 30 still limits the lower bound of a player's field of view, though to a lesser degree than the headpiece 10. In addition, however, a lowered horizontal wire, such as the wire 41, increases the dimensions “X1” and “Y1” of an eye opening (e.g., the eye opening 42 in headpiece such as 30), to such a degree that it is possible for a ball to travel through and injure the player. Thus, while some headpieces, such as headpiece 30, have less interference to the player's field of view because of a lowered horizontal wire, there remains serious risk of injury to a player wearing the headpiece.
Accordingly, there is a need in the art for a protective headpiece that adequately protects a player's face, while at the same time not interfering with the player's field of view and performance. In particular, it would be desirable to provide a fielding headpiece that protects a player's nose and eyes while not interfering with the player's field of view.